Despite Palin, Beluga Whales On The Endangered Species List
- Thread starter John R
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
Thanks, John R for posting the links. I have skimmed them for now but have printed them to read later...
This is tied to the last link John R posted. They should have ellaborated in the article but didn't. It's a two edged sword they are dealing with. Alaska certainly wants to expand and improve its infrastructure and waterfront in many cases. By listing the whales all of that comes to a stand still and results in costly studies before building anything. I can see both sides of that coin equally well.
I did notice some things that popped out in skimming that I'm sure makes up most of the state's argument. All of the studys and all of the figures that appear to be used in making the determination were year 2000 or earlier. Without getting into details here it certainly seems the state has a compelling argument on some level considering many of the things that were called out for concern have been addressed during the past 8 years and are improving. Many of the models used were incorrect to a degree. One of the interesting things that I found was that Cook's Inlet and Turnagin Pass are still recovering from the 1964 earthquake.
I don't think it was ever the state's intent to fight it for the sake of never putting the whales on the list. My guess from a lot of the language that I saw was that the state wants to re-evaluate the current conditions to validate or disprove the earlier findings before settling on a course. Again, I'm always for the welfare of animals, but I'm trying to see the big picture here. If they are endangered as the pre 2000 studies showed, no harm no foul; however, by putting them on the list as a pre-emptive strike, it puts a whole other set of laws and standards into place that must be abided by. If the new studies come back saying that they, indeed, do not need to be on the list, the state and other institutions needlessly had to put out tons of money that, ultimately, was not required to be spent.
Not condemning or condoning either side, but the Treehugger site certainly only gives one side of the situation without presenting any back story for the "why". Most people won't do the digging like we just did and will, sadly, take it for rote.
This is tied to the last link John R posted. They should have ellaborated in the article but didn't. It's a two edged sword they are dealing with. Alaska certainly wants to expand and improve its infrastructure and waterfront in many cases. By listing the whales all of that comes to a stand still and results in costly studies before building anything. I can see both sides of that coin equally well.
I did notice some things that popped out in skimming that I'm sure makes up most of the state's argument. All of the studys and all of the figures that appear to be used in making the determination were year 2000 or earlier. Without getting into details here it certainly seems the state has a compelling argument on some level considering many of the things that were called out for concern have been addressed during the past 8 years and are improving. Many of the models used were incorrect to a degree. One of the interesting things that I found was that Cook's Inlet and Turnagin Pass are still recovering from the 1964 earthquake.
I don't think it was ever the state's intent to fight it for the sake of never putting the whales on the list. My guess from a lot of the language that I saw was that the state wants to re-evaluate the current conditions to validate or disprove the earlier findings before settling on a course. Again, I'm always for the welfare of animals, but I'm trying to see the big picture here. If they are endangered as the pre 2000 studies showed, no harm no foul; however, by putting them on the list as a pre-emptive strike, it puts a whole other set of laws and standards into place that must be abided by. If the new studies come back saying that they, indeed, do not need to be on the list, the state and other institutions needlessly had to put out tons of money that, ultimately, was not required to be spent.
Not condemning or condoning either side, but the Treehugger site certainly only gives one side of the situation without presenting any back story for the "why". Most people won't do the digging like we just did and will, sadly, take it for rote.
If the Beluga Whales were endangered pre 2000, it takes a 95 page document to disprove or debate the fact that a mammal that reproduces only every three years would still be endangered?
KDW, I found a beluga cam with a baby.
http://www.vanaqua.org/belugacam/
KDW, I found a beluga cam with a baby.
http://www.vanaqua.org/belugacam/
Here's a good one for you, too!
http://www.georgiaaquarium.org/exploreTheAquarium/webcam-beluga.aspx
these were some pretty good articles surrounding the issue:
NYT
Reuters
the above articles tell me everything I need to know about this. I say thank you to NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Department - Alaska for protecting whales and other species and their environments.
..What we thought was interesting were the clips of her we kept seeing last night ... where she was addressing supporters .... we kept noticing a special little Polar Bear pin on her lapel ....
What we thought was interesting were the clips of her we kept seeing last night ... where she was addressing supporters .... we kept noticing a special little Polar Bear pin on her lapel ....
She kilt it and shrunk it to accessory size. Like a Shrinky Dink
:leaving:
She kilt it and shrunk it to accessory size. Like a Shrinky Dink
Shouldn't we be angry that she isn't wearing a flag lapel pin?
Shouldn't we be angry that she isn't wearing a flag lapel pin?
She kilt the bear wit the flag pin........resourceful
...another thread lands in the 'high school' bin. so sad.